Challenge Match. 44soulslayer v Budski: Guns for British Subjects

The topic for this debate is "British subjects should be accorded the right to keep and bear arms".

44soulslayer will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Budski will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each
and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you
make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you
post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing
statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are
permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable,
but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.

Ladies and gentlemen of ATS, judges and my honourable opponent, I thank you all for the opportunity to debate an issue that is close to my heart. I do
hope that we may all gain a new perspective on the issues at hand from the following debate.

Through this debate I aim to prove by statistics, logic and a little rhetoric, that the British public ought to be accorded the right to keep and bear
arms.

Through my next three posts I shall outline the reasons that lend support to the proposition, and rebut the claims of my opponent.

The proposition stands before us:

"British subjects should be accorded the right to keep and bear arms"

To begin with, I would like to examine this proposition, notably the terminology used to phrase it.

British subjects should be accorded : Since Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy by nature, the general public are technically referred
to as “Subjects of Her Majesty”. For those of the audience residing outside the UK, please take this term to equate to “citizen”.

The words be accorded implies that British subjects do not currently have the right to keep and bear arms. This can be taken as factual in
basis, since heavy legislation is currently in place to prohibit the possession and carriage of arms by British subjects. The Bill of Rights (1689)
states:

The subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.

This statement implies that there is no innate or natural right of British subjects to keep and bear arms. Additional legislation from the periods
between 1940- 1997 have effectively prohibited wholesale the possession of arms by British subjects.

We may thus conclude that, as it stands, British subjects do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Furthermore, we may take the phrase keep and bear arms to mean :

a. The possession of firearms, swords and any other weapon pertaining to the acts of self defence, hunting or martial arts; but not exclusive to these
activities.
b. The carriage of arms with the intention to deter crime from oneself and one’s family; or for any other lawful purpose.

______________________________________________________________

Having shown that there is at present no right to keep and bear arms, I shall expand on the reasons why I think there ought to be such a right in
terms of:

a. The need for such a right and the effects such a right would have upon society
b. The lack of statistical support for gun control
c. The ethics of self-determination and freedom

I shall examine the effect of widespread firearms ownership in countries where the right to keep and bear arms exists.

I shall examine the restrictions which I believe may be adequately placed upon the right to keep and bear arms (notably upon criminals), which would
better serve a reduction in crime than a blanket ban upon arms.

I shall examine the morals of arms ownership, the dubious ethics of gun control and the philosophy of self-determination.

I shall additionally disprove the theories of my honourable opponent, while expounding upon my own.

Thanks to my opponent for his rather flowery opening statement, to the vagabond for setting this up, and to fellow members for reading and voting.

The title of this debate is "British subjects should be accorded the right to keep and bear arms".

During the course of this debate, I will show beyond any doubt that the British public should NOT have the right to bear arms - and despite my
opponents endeavours to set the course of the debate and define what "arms" are, I intend to take a position that is concerned only with facts,
rather than "statistics, logic and a little rhetoric"

Although those that know me can be sure that I'll also be throwing in a little rhetoric of my own, should the need arise.

To raise a small concern about my opponents opening statement, in which he quotes fron the bill of rights "The subjects which are Protestants may
have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law. "
Here my opponent has made his first error, in that this portion of the bill of rights talks about only the rights of Protestants. and is the
only part of the bill of rights which mentions any sort of right to bear arms.

I suspect he has done this in order to rid the debate of any "constitutional" issues from the outset.

My opponent has also made the bold assertion that he will disprove my theories - and this may be true, except I shall be mostly using FACTS which are
difficult to disprove with rhetoric.

My opponent would also like to thrust his own personal view of morals on us in order to "prove" his theory.

He would also like to

examine the restrictions which I believe may be adequately placed upon the right to keep and bear arms (notably upon criminals),

I await his solution to law/criminals/guns with bated breath and am sure that the criminals will happily comply with whatever legislation he
proposes.

And this is one of the key issues: LEGISLATION.

When the government legislates in favour of one group, it automatically impacts on another group.

I will go on later in the debate, that Britian does not need guns, has never needed guns and that the laws we have in place are there for a reason.

Doubtless my opponent will try to tug on the heartstrings as he mentions the incidents that brought the current legislation to where it is now, but I
need no such cheap trick to prove beyond doubt that Britain has no need or desire to the right to bear arms.

My opponent has stated that my intention in clarifying the constitutional standpoint from the outset was to negate any debate along this line of
inquiry. This is simply not the case, and such an argument is borne of a lack of a standpoint from my opponent.

Either he finds himself in the position that the constitutional standing of arms at the moment is that arms are unlawful (as stated by myself), or he
finds himself in the position that arms are currently lawful under the unwritten constitution. Either situation is equally unpalatable and untenable
to my honourable opponent. May I ask that he make up his mind as to which side of this important issue he concludes upon.

First point of Soulslayer’s argument

In this post I intend to prove that there is a clear need for arms in modern British society, that the act of legalizing arms in the realm
would produce positive as opposed to negative effects, and compare statistics from different nations with varying degrees of arms controls as real
life examples.

The need

A common question posed by arms control advocates is “Where is the need for firearms?”. The need for firearms may be condensed into a single,
irrefutable necessity: self defence.

Self Defence : A primary reason for freedom of firearms ownership amongst subjects should be for the purpose of self defence. Violent crime
rates, muggings and murders have been steadily climbing in the UK for the past decade if not longer. The statistics published by the government show
this trend, and are clear indicators that the UK is not a safe haven. Additionally, it is reasonable to state that the police cannot be expected to
deal with every single crime, and to prevent every single crime. If this were the case, there would be no crime whatsoever, and guns would not be
necessary for self defence. However as it stands, crime still exists, thus necessitating the possession of firearms. It is not so much the rise in
crime that is the thrust of my argument here, it is that crime still exists and is considerably likely to one in ten people.

From the statistics, it is clear that many people are affected by crime. I would hope that most of you reading this debate would have already known
that!

I propose that firearms should be legalized to British subjects in order that they may protect themselves and their families.

If confronted by an armed assailant, they would have an immediate recourse to prevent themselves from harm.

A woman could stop a rapist in his steps by using her firearm.

A man could protect his family from an armed robber by using his firearm.

As such, firearms would directly reduce the rate of crime by preventing criminals from achieving their aims. Subsidiary effects would include
criminals being deterred from crime for fear of not knowing if their potential victim is armed or not.

Additionally, statistics show that restrictive firearms regulations (gun control), results in increased violent crime and murder. This is directly due
to the fact that victims are unarmed to stop the aggressor, and the fact that aggressors know that their victims are going to be unarmed.

Consider the following statistics from the United States of America:

• New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46%
and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
• In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by
1977.
• In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134%
while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

• After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun
ownership, increased.
Source of statistics: www.ncpa.org...

Why do these gun bans not work? The reason is simple. It is because only the law abiding are inclined to follow gun control laws. Criminals on the
other hand, do not follow laws concerning firearm ownership and thus there is no positive effect upon the incidences of crime.

Conversely, we see the effect of legalizing guns and in particular, passing laws enabling the free carriage of firearms by members of the public. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over
2 percent.
Source: John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime”

A most efficient way to deter crime is to arm the potential victims of crime: the general public. Studies have additionally shown that in cases where
the victim uses a firearm to defend themselves, only 10% sustain injury as opposed to 50% of cases where an object other than a firearm is used. This
fact proves that firearms are an efficient method of self defence.

There are other reasons for owning firearms such as hunting, pest control and sporting purposes. Britain’s chances in the Olympic games are severely
hampered by the refusal of the government to allow them to own firearms to train, and I myself am an avid and much restrained target shooter. However
none of these reasons is as urgent and pressing a need as self defence is.

Summary

In summary, I propose that subjects should be accorded the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defence, as this has been proven to be
an efficient method of crime prevention. Furthermore I would like to point out that statistics show no drop in crime rate (particularly homicide
involving firearms, homicide in general and violent assault) when guns have been blanket banned. Furthermore statistics show that banning guns results
in an increase in rape, murder and robbery while legalizing guns for carriage has the reverse effect.

I would like to conclude this post by putting a few Socratic questions to my opponent:

1. Do you think that subjects have a right to self defence?
2. Do you think that guns are an efficient tool of self defence?
3. Do you think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns?
4. Do you think that banning guns under the 1997 (b) Firearms amendment was a good or bad move?

Answers to Socratic Questions
1. Do you think that subjects have a right to self defence?
This right exists already in law.
Citizens have a right to use reasonable force, for the following:
* self-defence; or
* defence of another; or
* defence of property; or
* prevention of crime; or
* lawful arrest.

2. Do you think that guns are an efficient tool of self defence?
No, I think they are an efficient means of killing another human being.

3. Do you think that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns?
No - and I will expand on this more during the debate.

4. Do you think that banning guns under the 1997 (b) Firearms amendment was a good or bad move?
A good move because the majority of the electorate supported it.

Rebuttal 1
My opponent has stated that due to rising crime there is a need for citizens to have guns to protect themselves, and used
this link as proof that crime has risen in the last decade.

When I said I was not prepared to play ball on certain issues, I was unaware that my opponent would then drop the ball.
According to "Extent and Trends" Chapter 2 page 1, violent crime has dropped by 41% since 1995.
And lets not forget page 3:

Violent crime as measured by the BCS has fallen by 41 per cent since a peak in 1995,
representing over half a million fewer victims.
• Just under half (49%) of all violent incidents reported to the BCS did not result in any
injury to the victim. A similar proportion (50%) of all police recorded violence against the
person in 2006/07 involved no injury.

There are many other figures which totally refute the argument my opponent proposes, from his own source.

It seems that my opponent is either arrogant or incompetent and has either not bothered to read his source or did not understand it.

I leave that judgement to the readers.

I would also question his second link from the NCPA site, which states that; scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun
control laws.

As for using "statistics" from 1966, 1968 and 1976/77 I would suggest that the world is a vastly different place than it was 30 - 40 years ago
including much imroved policing methods.

I do not propose to waste any more of my or the readers time quoting my opponents woefully misjudged statistical analysis, instead I shall be posting
some of my own and looking at victims of guns - not just those victims injured by criminal acts, but all victims of guns.

First Post

My opponent has been very vociferous in his support of the non-existent "right" to bear arms.

During this post I will show that guns are dangerous - not just in the wrong hands, but in ANY hands.

They are, after all, a weapon made for the express purpose of firing a high velocity metallic projectile at another human being.
Here are some studies about wound ballistics which is the study of effects on the body produced
by penetrating projectiles.

Does this sound like reasonable force?

Or does this sound like vigilante justice - summary justice without the due process of law.
My opponent appears to come from the Judge Dread school of "law enforcement"

I would also like to direct your attention to some of the myths surrounding gun control in the US, where the NRA and powerfull lobbly groups seek to
hide the REAL statistics and the problems of widespread gun ownership by muddying the waters, so that they can continue to earn billions from an
industry of death.

First lets look at the impact on children of widespread gun ownership.
In 2005, eight young people aged 19 and under were killed a day by a firearm in the United States. In 2006, 48 per day were non-fatally wounded.
This and other statistics on the page are due mostly to handguns which were bought primarily for self defense.

Then there's the problem of domestic violence where a 2003 study showed that
the presence of a gun in the home made it 6 times more likely that an abused woman would be murdered than other abused women, and this is before we
even start to look at the other statistics about guns and domestic violence.

Here are some of the firearm facts that the NRA and its lobbyists would rather
you did not see, simply because the picture is not quite as rosy as they would have you believe.

As we can see from these FACTS, more guns means more gun violence.

Of course my opponent would have you believe that only "responsible" people would have access to guns - what he neglects to tell us is who decides a
persons responsibility, and why a proportion of the population should go "unprotected" because he doesn't deem them worthy.

This in turn would open the door to many different kinds of litigation against the government for not allowing sections of the populace to possess a
weapon - most notably, the European Human Rights act, which does not allow discrimination of the kind he proposes, and also does not allow the
following:
1.1 Article 1 - obligation to respect human rights
1.2 Article 2 - right to life
1.3 Article 3 - prohibition of torture
1.4 Article 4 - prohibition of slavery
1.5 Article 5 - right to liberty and security
1.6 Article 6 - right to a fair trial
1.7 Article 7 - no punishment without law
1.8 Article 8 - right to respect for private life
1.9 Article 9 - right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1.10 Article 10 - right to freedom of expression
1.11 Article 11 - right to freedom of assembly and association
1.13 Article 13 - right to an effective remedy
1.14 Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination
1.15 Article 15 - derogations
1.17 Article 17 - prohibition of abuse of rights
1.18 Article 18 - limitations on permitted restrictions of rights

If my opponent wishes to discuss these articles which are enshrined in law, I will be more than happy to do so, but the point is, that guns for a
limited few would be against many of these articles of LAW.

People would be appealing every decision not to allow them a weapon, tying up the courts and effectively letting criminals go free because there would
be no room in the justice system to prosecute them, costing billions in much needed resources, just because a few hotheads think they are Charles
Bronson.

I will be further exploring the vigilante culture my opponent seeks to promote - which would also contravene the Human Rights Act, and would
effectively make our police force redundant, leading to anarchy for all but the priveledged few who he decides are worthy of carrying a lethal
weapon.

Socratic Questions

1) What would be the criteria for gun ownership, and why?

2) Why have you stopped mentioning swords, when in your first post you lumped them and knives and guns together for "self defense"

Furthermore, we may take the phrase keep and bear arms to mean :a. The possession of firearms, swords and any other weapon pertaining to the acts of
self defence, hunting or martial arts; but not exclusive to these activities.

3) We have highly trained armed response units on our streets - what makes you think that an untrained civilian would be more effective.

4) Where are the hunting preserves, open to the public, IN THE UK which would necessitate the need for the populace to own high-powered weapons of
death?

5) Do you advocate the carrying of concealed guns, knives, swords as a means of self defense in a largely unarmed populace, and if so,why?

1. What would be the criteria for gun ownership, and why?
The criteria would be a criminal record free past, stable mental condition and certification by a mandatory state-run training program. The reason
behind this set of criteria is clear: there is no justification for disarming those who are trained, law abiding and sane.

2. Why have you stopped mentioning swords, when in your first post you lumped them and knives and guns together for "self defense"?
You have misunderstood the statement that I made. Firearms and swords were examples of weapons that may be borne under the definition; and self
defence was an example pertaining to firearms. I notice you have conveniently ignored the suggestion of “martial arts” as an intended purpose for
swords!

3. We have highly trained armed response units on our streets - what makes you think that an untrained civilian would be more effective?
Please see answer to Socratic question number 1. I believe that trained citizens would stand a much better chance of defending themselves against an
assault because they are the immediate victims of the assault. Armed police are certainly not routine on our streets. Are you suggesting that the
response time of armed police to an incident is faster than the time taken by a bullet to travel from the assailant’s gun to the victim?

4. Where are the hunting preserves, open to the public, IN THE UK which would necessitate the need for the populace to own high-powered weapons of
death?
Though this really isn’t my concern, as I am not a hunter, I will oblige your request. I wish those who want to hunt with firearms to have the
freedom to do so. Here is the data you requested : www.countrysports.co.uk...

5. Do you advocate the carrying of concealed guns, knives, swords as a means of self defense in a largely unarmed populace, and if so,why?
No. But Britain is not a “largely unarmed populace” as you put it. 24% of young people over the age of 16 admitted carrying a knife or other
offensive weapon and 19% admitted to using one. Does this sound like an unarmed populace to you? I feel that law abiding citizens ought to be allowed
to protect themselves in case they find themselves under attack from one of these knife wielding youths. Source :
www.nya.org.uk...

Rebuttal of opponent’s position

I would begin my rebuttal by examining the opening sentence of my opponent’s post.
He stated

My opponent has been very vociferous in his support of the non-existent "right" to bear arms.

I would ask my opponent why he continues to labour this point to his own detriment, when I myself have admitted that there is no legal right in the UK
as it stands to own a firearm. My position is that this should be changed, and that this right should be accorded to British subjects. One would have
to question the purpose of my opponent’s misleading claim that I am supporting a perceived right in existence, when in fact I have freely stated
that the right is not in existence.

My opponent goes on to state

During this post I will show that guns are dangerous - not just in the wrong hands, but in ANY hands.

I would question the thinking behind this statement. Does my opponent want to end up in the unenviable position of having to defend a proposition of
unarmed policemen and unarmed soldiers? I believe that the fact that policemen and soldiers are granted permission to utilize firearms in a sensible
manner that is of benefit to the British subjects is a concept that may be expanded to the subjects. Clearly there are some people who are
considered responsible enough to merit their armament such as soldiers and policemen, so why should a trained civilian not be offered this option?

My opponent then goes into the realms of pure conjecture, by slandering the NRA and 2nd amendment pressure groups with claims of statistical fraud.
What proof does he have of this?

My opponent then goes on to present a raft of data on gun crime and gun murders in the USA from the Brady Campaign. This data not only disproves my
opponent’s position, but it actually supports the need for further armament of law abiding citizens.
While his source states:

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22
criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.

It is abundantly clear that is a contortion of statistics to suit the aims of the Brady Campaign. They have mixed the data from legally owned handguns
used to legitimately stop crime, with all homicides, 90% of which use illegally owned arms and are criminal in nature.

Furthermore my opponent wishes to cloud the judgement of a reader with sentiments of child death and use child death as justification for the
prohibition of firearms. May I draw his attention to the following statistic from his own source, which states:

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.

May I ask my opponent why he is not calling for the prohibition of all motor vehicles, if his aim is to reduce youth mortality.

My opponent then goes on to examine the EU Human Rights Act and attempts to use that act as a defence for not being able to discriminate between
subjects. While this is debateable, I would not seek to discuss this issue for the simple reason that this debate is about changing the laws to
allow the keeping and bearing of arms . May I ask my esteemed opponent why he is bringing up current laws as justification for being unable to
enable armament in the future, which would need a change in laws in any case?

I would seek to point out that my opponent has done nothing to prove that more arms in the hands of law abiding citizens would result in more
unjustifiable gun murders. He has sought to distort the statistics by using figures for crimes committed with illegally owned firearms. He has further
used statistics which pertain only to the United States, a country where it is not mandatory to undergo training to keep and bear arms. My opponent
has done nothing to disprove that arming law abiding, sane and trained citizens is a bad thing.

Soulslayer’s Second Post

In my second post, I would like to examine the effect of gun control in terms of efficacy in reducing crime.

Micro-study

Evanston, Illinois banned handguns from the town entirely but experienced no reduction in crime.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134%
while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and
the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

It is clear to see that the imposition of restrictive firearms laws results in an increase in murder, and increase in other crimes. Why is gun control
in force in our country, if we know that this is likely to be the effect?

Macro Study

Switzerland has a population in which is 39% of the population is armed with assault rifles and ammunition, and trained in their use. I know from
personal experience that military training involves instruction in a technique known as “shoot to kill”. Despite this, Switzerland has one of the
lowest firearms homicide rates in the entire world.
Would my opponent care to venture a rebuttal as to how this may be?

Japan, which has a blanket ban on most types of firearms (considered to have the harshest firearms controls in the world), has a homicide rate that is
comparable to Switzerland’s in order of magnitude.

Additionally, we may examine the country at hand in this debate : Great Britain. The 1997 (b) Firearms amendment act banned the private ownership of
handguns. Since then the firearms murder rate has fluctuated between 58 – 122 deaths per year. It is amply clear that this act has had no effect
upon crime, because it targeted only the law abiding target shooters, who had no inclination to commit murder in the first place.

I do believe that I have provided evidence that gun control does not work. While I too hate the effects of gun crime, I know that gun control is not
the answer. I would ask you, the reader, to carefully examine my opponents’ posts and see for yourself that he includes absolutely no evidence that
gun control would reduce gun crime. While gun control is the intuitive response to gun crime for some people, it is abundantly clear that in practice
it does not work.

The effect of gun control is merely to eliminate possession of firearms from people who have no inclination to commit crime in the first place, while
criminals are free to run amok without fear of reprisal. To borrow a cliché, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”.

I would like to finish by posing some Socratic questions to my opponent:

1. How is it that Switzerland’s gun murder rate is so low considering the widespread possession of lethal assault weapons?
2. If the 1997 firearms amendment hasn’t reduced the number of gun murders at all then why do you still think it was a good idea?
3. Would you prefer to be unarmed if confronted by an armed assailant?
4. Considering that about 60% of gun related deaths are suicides, do you think that the suicide rate would reduce if guns were outlawed?
5. Why do you seek to use the EU Human rights act as a justification for maintaining the status quo of gun laws in this country, when the debate is
about whether the laws should be changed to permit gun ownership in constitutional form?

Answers to Socratic Questions
1. How is it that Switzerland’s gun murder rate is so low considering the widespread possession of lethal assault weapons?
This made me laugh - Swiss law requires all males to be part of a defense militia from the ages 20 to 42. Weapons are kept at home along with a
limited amount of ammunition.
The swiss are also currently tightening their gun laws, due to mass shootings.

2. If the 1997 firearms amendment hasn’t reduced the number of gun murders at all then why do you still think it was a good idea?
You haven't provided any statistics to proves this, so it's not really a valid question.
What we haven't seen is more massacres.

3. Would you prefer to be unarmed if confronted by an armed assailant?
Yep - you'll just escalate the violence - and from your own source, 49% of violent incidents did not result in any injury to the victim.

4. Considering that about 60% of gun related deaths are suicides, do you think that the suicide rate would reduce if guns were outlawed?
Of course - the FACTS that I've posted are there to read.

5. Why do you seek to use the EU Human rights act as a justification for maintaining the status quo of gun laws in this country, when the debate is
about whether the laws should be changed to permit gun ownership in constitutional form?
I don't.
You are showing a profound misunderstanding of how the Human Rights act interacts and is part of UK law.

Rebuttal 2

First I'd like to address my opponents answer to my first socratic question.

1. What would be the criteria for gun ownership, and why?
The criteria would be a criminal record free past, stable mental condition and certification by a mandatory state-run training program. The reason
behind this set of criteria is clear: there is no justification for disarming those who are trained, law abiding and sane.

By this criteria, Harold Shipman, Denis Nielsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West and Ian Huntley would all have had the legal right to carry guns.
Imagine that - mass murderers having the legal right to own guns.

The murderer of dunblane Thomas Watt Hamilton would also qualify, as would Michael Robert Ryan, the hugerford mass murderer.

Doesn't seem like much of an idea to me.

I would also like to say that nothing my opponent has said - and there's been a lot of talking with very few facts, other than those he got wrong -
has any merit or basis in fact.

As promised by him, we are seeing an awfull lot of rhetoric with very little to back it up.

He has so little evidence he has taken to repeatedly posting the same link.

In other words, a lot of talk, but very little substance.

In my answers to his socratic questions, I covered swiss gun laws and the FACT that they are being tightened - doesn't sound like the swiss are too
happy with a liberal approach to guns. Even the swiss are cracking down on guns!
Does this not speak volumes?

Let's be honest, this isn't about a need - this is about my opponent wanting a gun.
Wanting to be like wyatt earp and have the ability to shoot someone, or perhaps he'd like to chop them up with his sword or stab them with his
knife.

This isn't about freedom, it's about people who have no idea of the damage guns can cause wanting to act macho, and say to any potential criminal
that they'll "pop a cap in they ass" because like gun owners the world over, they think that owning one makes them invincible.

2nd Post
As my opponent doesn't seem to want to post any stats (and who can blame him after the BCS link debacle) I'll post some of my own. Here's some stats about gun crime, the effect of gun crime and the lies that the NRA and the Gun
Lobby in the US want you to believe.

The idea that you are safer because you own a gun is simply not true, as I have PROVED time and time again.

If my opponent has data to show that anything on the Brady Campaign site is untrue, he should share it with, rather than just spouting that it's
"wrong"
Sorry, but you need to do more than tell us, you need to show us.
You know, EVIDENCE.

But I forget that I am dealing with someone who can't even quote his own source without getting it wrong, so I'll try to be as clear as possible.

In 2001, there were nearly 17,000 gun related deaths, including nearly 12,000 murders - and this was one of the years when the numbers were on the low
side. source
If we do a quick and dirty comparison, and say that the UK has a population roughly one fifth of the US, this would equate to 3,4000 deaths in the UK
from guns, and 2,400 murders.

Suddenly, the murder figures in the UK look pretty good.

Here's another report from the Brady Centre, this time showing how the gun industry lies, and
covers up in order to keep making billions from the sales of weapons of death.

And let's be quite clear about this - guns were invented for the sole purpose of firing a high velocity projectile into the body of another human
being, causing massive damage in the process as shown in my previous post.

My opponent will no doubt try to say that guns were invented for hunting or some such nonsense - the FACT is that early guns were inaccurate, far too
inaccurate for hunting, which is why they used volley fire with the earliest guns.
No doubt my opponent believes the movies which show someone shooting someone over a hundred yards away with a smooth bore musket - but it's simply
not true and is undeniably silly.

It's unfortunate that gullible people like my opponent believe NRA and industry propaganda when it has been shown to be untrue.

I don't expect him to read the reports from the Brady Centre - he's already shown that research is not his strong point - but I am sure the more
discerning readers will see the merits of the reports.

Here's some more FACTS about the relationship between guns and deaths, although my opponent
seems to have a little trouble grasping the concept of factual evidence

I would recommend reading the part about massacres being perpetrated with legally held weapons
here

My opponent is convinced (at least in his own mind) that more guns equals less crime.
I have disproved this many times - and yet he can come up with nothing more substantial than his own opinion to back up his own claims.

Socratic Questions

1) Where do the police fit into your gun-toting utopia?

2) Do you think that shooting a person dead is "reasonable force" when a citizen is trying to prevent a crime?

3) Under what circumstances would you shoot a person dead by using a penetrating, high velocity projectile?

4) If our streets are so very dangerous, why aren't ALL poice armed.

5) How would the police be able to tell who was the criminal if they came across an armed situation, and what's the chances of them just shooting the
legal gun carrier for non-compliance?

1) Where do the police fit into your gun-toting utopia?
In their present place. I fail to see why their role would change simply because there are more firearms present.

2) Do you think that shooting a person dead is "reasonable force" when a citizen is trying to prevent a crime?
Yes. Of course this would only apply to some crimes, which may be set in law. I reserve no sympathy for rapists, murderers et al. If someone is caught
committing such an act, they ought to be shot dead to stop them in their tracks.

3) Under what circumstances would you shoot a person dead by using a penetrating, high velocity projectile?
If I felt there was a danger to the life or wellbeing of myself, my family or anyone else for that matter. I feel that in any such situation, lethal
force is necessary to prevent risking the death of an innocent subject. No doubt my opponent shall conflate this point into a “vigilante mindset”
argument, but I would request that the reader realise that the current mindset of our country is to put criminals before victims, and I would ask the
reader to consider whether this is something that we wish to continue.

4) If our streets are so very dangerous, why aren't ALL poice [sic] armed?
They ought to be, but they are scared because of the litigiousness of modern society. If a police wrongly takes a shot at a suspect, he is liable to a
whole host of legal issues. It is for this reason that the police fear handguns- because they have to face up to the consequences of their actions.
Instead they are now looking into standard-issuing Tasers, which allows for a “shoot now, ask later” policy.

5) How would the police be able to tell who was the criminal if they came across an armed situation, and what's the chances of them just shooting the
legal gun carrier for non-compliance?
This is for the police to determine. I cant pretend to know their modus operandi, but one assumes that they would cope. Unless you have the figures to
prove that police regularly confuse armed citizens with criminals?

Rebuttal to Opponent’s second post

My opponent first states

By this criteria, Harold Shipman, Denis Nielsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West and Ian Huntley would all have had the legal right to carry guns.

You are making the assumption that all those listed above would have to successfully complete the state run training program, and be adjudicated
mentally stable. Need I remind my opponent that Thomas Hamilton was a known paedophile when he was granted his firearms license. It is the
job of the Ministry of Justice to adequately ensure that the system is policed.

My opponent further continues to ignore the figures provided, and continues to use two figures hand picked contradictory figures out of a raft of
hundreds of others which back up my argument as justice of my supposed “incapability to provide factual evidence”. Might I remind him that he has
yet to refute the data provided which contradict his theories, and might I offer him the following reminder.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen
134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and
the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

It is much easier for my opponent to attack me rather than my arguments. It is easier for him to launch ad hominem attacks and harp on about my
supposed vacuousness than for him to refute the hard statistics such as those shown above.

My opponent then goes on to play politics with the issue of Swiss gun ownership.
The following article from the BBC shows the status of firearms in Swiss society very well: news.bbc.co.uk... The
debate in Switzerland about their level of armament is considered a political issue used by the opposition to garner votes.

My opponent also claimed that suicides decrease when firearms are banned.
This source shall roundly disprove that notion : ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

The main finding of the study was:

[quote In the case of men using guns for suicide, these data support a hypothesis of substitution of suicide method.

I would ask my opponent by what mechanism does he suggest that more guns result in more suicides? I would additionally ask him why he thinks that
suicides committed with a firearm are any more repugnant than suicides carried out by any other means.

My opponent then asserts that this debate is about my personal “want” of a gun. Yes, he is absolutely correct. I want a gun for self defence; I
want a gun to protect my family from criminals, and I want that right for every other law abiding subject of this nation. I find my opponent’s wish
to be unarmed when assailed baffling.

My opponent states that my preference to own and carry a firearm stems from a childish “want” akin to a child in a sweet shop. Conversely I would
suggest that my opponent is nothing more than a hoplophobic who wants to disarm everyone so that he won’t have to look at big scary guns.

My opponent then goes on to offer a source of statistics which he bases wild and inaccurate calculations upon.
The source : thegreenman.net.au... shows that 60% of firearms related deaths are suicides. I have already provided
evidence that the suicide rate does not decrease with fewer guns, people simply use other methods of suicide.
The statistics do not show the number of homicides committed by licensed, legally owned firearms because this would disprove gun control advocates’
theory of law abiding citizens being armed posing a threat to society. Furthermore the statistics do not show the number of homicides which were
“justifiable” in nature- i.e the number of times a criminal has been shot dead while committing a crime.

One suspects that my opponent will simply brush aside these critiques of his data source by claiming he “does not wish to waste the readers’
time”.

Further my opponents first statistical source stated that there were severe incidences where permit holders committed crimes. I wonder how my opponent
will explain away these findings:

In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent
gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of
law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly
selected Floridian without a permit."

In this post, I wish to debate some of the ethical issues surrounding gun control.
The first point that I ought to make is that I believe in the freedom of self determinism. I believe that a man or woman should be given the freedom
to do as he/she pleases, so long as he does not violate the freedom of any other man (or woman). It is from an extension of this principle that I seek
the right to keep and bear arms. I wish to have the right to protect my family by myself, in keeping with my beliefs and thoughts.

My opponent on the other hand, would like to impose his will upon others. He would like them all to roam the streets of our nation unarmed and
helpless to attack. He would rather see a criminal live and a victim bear the brunt of the assault, simply through his wish for gun control.

My opponent wishes to continue to remove the freedom of the subjects of this nation, by ensuring their disarmament and incapability to defend
themselves.

Furthermore, my opponent wishes to categorize all people by the mistakes of the few. My opponent seeks to use previous misdemeanors as justification
for the oppression of all people in the present.

Furthermore he wishes to seek the banning of firearms on the mere basis of their lethality. I once again ask him why he doesn’t call for the banning
of automobiles, given that they kill a magnitude more people every year than firearms.

Another ethical distinction to be made is that my opponent assumes that firearms will be used ineptly or criminally by most people. A firearm is a
tool. Yes, it is a tool designed to kill others, but it is a tool nonetheless. Even a screwdriver or a firework could be used to murder someone, but
my opponent does not call for a ban on these items.

Presuming that a person will use a firearm to cause death is as rational as assuming a person with a screwdriver will stab someone. It is a
presumption of guilt, and is an odious concept.

The final point I would like to make is rhetorical in nature. I would ask my opponent why he wishes to impose his will upon others. I would ask why,
even if he feels it would cause fewer deaths, does he seek to disarm those people who wish to protect themselves. Does my opponent feel that the
statistics justify one man’s ability to impose his will upon another?

Socratic Questions

1. Why are you not calling for a blanket ban on automobiles, considering they kill far more people than firearms?
2. If a member of your family was murdered in front of you, would you still wish to be unarmed while the incident took place?
3. Do you think that the police can respond to incidents fast enough?
4. If “yes” to the question above, why is it that murders still occur?
5. What gives one man the right to decide what tools another man may own?

Answers to Socratic Questions
1. Why are you not calling for a blanket ban on automobiles, considering they kill far more people than firearms?
An automobile is not designed for the express purpose of killing a human being, a gun is.

2. If a member of your family was murdered in front of you, would you still wish to be unarmed while the incident took place?
Trying to incite an answer by using the most unlikely hypothetical situation?
The answer is the same - justice is for the courts, not for me.

3. Do you think that the police can respond to incidents fast enough?
In incidences where there is a large degree of danger, for instance when firearms are present, yes they do.

4. If “yes” to the question above, why is it that murders still occur?
In a large percentage of murders, the perpetrator is either related to the victim or knows them, so the police have little time to respond.

5. What gives one man the right to decide what tools another man may own?
I don't - the elected representatives of the people decide, based on the wishes of the majority.
There is a reason why this is not a political issue - the majority of people don't want legal gun ownership.

Rebuttal 3

My opponent has again tried to use baselesss accusations to cover the fact that nothing he has posted backs up his argument even going so far as to
quote as fact an article entitled "Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation"

Not a fact - a theory, and then provides a dead link to "show" how swiss politics work, along with more 40 year old "data" which has absolutlely
no bearing on the modern world, or indeed, the UK.

All of this is SO very relevant.

I don't think.

And of course it's perfectly OK with him if prospective mass murderers are armed simply because they are clever enough to pass a test.

He then has the gall to say that others are making ethical decisions about HIM because the law says that gun ownership is, for the most part,
illegal.

Well, this is how it works - the politicians do not consider gun ownership to be an issue, simply because the vast majority of the electorate do not
want to own guns.

Only a few dirty harry wannabe's want guns - and yet the majority of the people are wrong for "judging him"

I fail to see any sense in this.

Does my opponent want to live in a country where the few determine what the many should have or do?

I seem to remember a country called the USSR which was like that.

For clarity, and because my opponent seems a little slow on the uptake, I'll repeat this: We don't have the right to be armed, because the people don't want the right to be armed.
You see?
It's quite simple really.

But then, I expect to have be very clear with an opponent who cannot read a link - specifically, the table which shows how gun-deaths in america break
down into groups.
Under the Heading "Homicide" , 11,671 deaths in 2001 - or nearly 12,000 as I previously stated.

The inclusion of NRA propaganda into an argument does not make these "theories" correct, and I have yet to see these "hundreds of figures" which
he says he has provided.

A little confused I think.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

Like I said, simple.
The fact that my opponent doesn't WANT it to be true makes no difference to the stats.

Here's some more reputable articles on the link between gun ownership and suicide.

My opponent would also have you believe that all UK police should be armed but are not due to the litigious nature of the country.

Rubbish - the police themselves do not WANT to be armed, because there is no need, as my opponent would know if he had bothered to read his own
source, the BCS, but if we had such liberal gun laws then ALL police would need to be armed, just because of the mass murderers who had been
given gun licences

He would have you believe that there are millions of armed criminals wandering the streets looking for people to rape and murder. His own source shows that there is less crime now than there was ten years ago.

3rd post
I'm pretty sure that my opponent has either not heard of or does not want to discuss, the Violent Crime Reduction Bill 2005 which sets out measures
to deal with violent criminals and make our streets even safer than they are now.

This is the key here - Our elected government is listening to the concerns people have about crime and are acting on them.

Our government decided many types of firearm should be banned, and others more tightly controlled - because that's what the majority wanted.

Our police are mostly unarmed because our streets are mostly safe - apart from a few inner city area's where gangs and drugs are the problems which
contribute to gun crime.

the majority of people do not want guns because they see no need for them, this is hardly enforcing my will on another - this is how democracy
works.

There's also the issue of gun theft.
A recent survey stated that the rate of gun theft in a state closely parallels its crime rate.
It also states the study found that the number of gun thefts declined from 1993 through August 2002 as states and cities strengthened gun control laws
and firearms registration. source
So the link is clear - more guns means more criminals will get guns, by the simple expedient of stealing them from gun owners, thereby giving the
criminals even greater and easier access to guns, not to mention that those with a grudge will also be able to get hold of a gun much more easily.

Widespread gun ownership and liberal gun laws lead to more gun deaths and more criminals having access to guns, as I have repeatedly shown.

Socratic Questions
1) In the event that we had gun ownership, and a law allowing concealed weapons, how do you propose to use that weapon - a quick draw holster
perhaps?

2) How can you ignore the factual statistics that show the links between increased deaths and more guns?

3) You have stated that

My opponent wishes to continue to remove the freedom of the subjects of this nation, by ensuring their disarmament and incapability to defend
themselves.

We have never had this freedom and we have the right in law to defend ourselves - which freedom has been removed, and how is disarmament being
ensured?

4) Our parliament has spoken and made laws according to the wishes of the majority of the people - why do you seek to impose your will on the
majority, and what right do you have to do so?

5) Do you believe in the democratic process of our nation, and if so, why do you wish to overturn it to satisfy the wishes of a tiny minority?

1) In the event that we had gun ownership, and a law allowing concealed weapons, how do you propose to use that weapon - a quick draw holster perhaps?
Perhaps, or perhaps not. That would be my decision based on my requirements at the time.

2) How can you ignore the factual statistics that show the links between increased deaths and more guns?

Because the “link” are no more tenuous than those showing the increase in the number of police officers to the number of crimes in an area. You,
dear sir, are confusing linkage and causality with effects and results.

3) You have stated that

My opponent wishes to continue to remove the freedom of the subjects of this nation, by ensuring their disarmament and incapability to defend
themselves.

We have never had this freedom and we have the right in law to defend ourselves - which freedom has been removed, and how is disarmament being
ensured?

It is good to see that you have finally come down on one side of the fence on this issue of whether or not we have the right at the moment.
Surprisingly you appear to agree with me that we do not. The freedom of efficient self defence has been removed. I could grant you the right to defend
yourself with a spoon in a knife fight, but of what benefit would that be to you? Disarmament is being ensured by the continued lack of access that
subjects have to arms.

4) Our parliament has spoken and made laws according to the wishes of the majority of the people - why do you seek to impose your will on the
majority, and what right do you have to do so?

Because I disagree with the idea that the majority may curtail the freedoms of a minority. I do believe a little institution called slavery is proof
that the majority aren’t always correct and that freedoms and rights must be non-negotiable even if 99.9% of other disagree with them.

5) Do you believe in the democratic process of our nation, and if so, why do you wish to overturn it to satisfy the wishes of a tiny minority?

No I don’t. Democracy will only work when every single person in the country is capable of an informed decision. The fact that elected
representatives send a bill through parliament is no indicative of public support for the bill, it just means that our government is unrepresentative
of our wishes and doesn’t care what we think. The fact that the Iraq War was authorised by our supposedly democratic government, and the ensuing
public furore is evidence that government legislation isn’t always the public’s will.

Rebuttal

My sincere apologies for the dead link. It appears that the full stop after the hyperlink caused it to malfunction. Here it is again :
news.bbc.co.uk...

My opponent chose to attack the points presented about the ethics of gun control with a point that gun ownership is not an issue because nobody
“cares” about it. My opponent claims that we need not even bother with this debate because the majority of the public do not wish to own guns.

There were 57000 handgun licenses on issue in 1997. There are currently upwards of a million shotgun licenses in circulation, and about 100000 rifle
licenses. When a million marched against the Iraq war, it was a big issue. If the rights of a million gun owners are breached, nobody would utter a
word. This is the politics of the issue. What right does my opponent have to claim that the interests and in some cases livelihoods of these
individuals doesn’t matter? These people were all penalised for the crimes of one criminal. Is that fair?

My opponent further asks

Does my opponent want to live in a country where the few determine what the many should have or do? I seem to remember a country called the USSR
which was like that.

No I do not. I want to live in a country where nobody tells another man what to do, so long as it does not interfere with his own life. This is the
very antithesis of communism and the USSR. I wish to live in a country with freedom, where people are not pre-judged as likely to commit a heinous
crime simply because they own a tool which is capable of destruction.

My opponent has previously stated that firearms are intrinsically unacceptable because their sole purpose is to kill. One would have to ask what sort
of criterion this is for deciding what is permissible or not. My opponent would not ban automobiles because their purpose is not for killing; though
if they were used to kill others on purpose by a small number of miscreants, would he then lobby for the banning of all automobiles?

Judging a tool by its purpose is a fallacy. If “purpose” were the only criteria for banning something, would my opponent advocate the legalization
of class A drugs such as heroin or coc aine?

I pose these questions to prove to you readers that my opponent’s motivation is nothing more than fear and paranoia. He seeks control over others
lives by attempting to ban what should be a fundamental right. He seeks to eliminate a small fraction of accidental deaths and suicide deaths at the
cost of allowing helpless women to be raped. In effect, he is abrogating the rights of the victim in favour of the rights of the assailant.

My opponent has continuously barraged fact after fact which are meaningless because they include figures for suicide, justifiable homicide and crimes
committed with illegal guns. My opponent shows the shocking figures for gun crime in the USA without a breakdown of these components because it would
immeasurably damage his argument.

My opponent has still chosen to ignore the data provided for the cases in which rape has been stopped by an armed woman. A ten to one ratio, of armed
to non armed women. He has no justification for preventing women from arming themselves, and seeks to show the reader fiddled figures and aberrant
data for gun crime.

My opponent has still not been able to explain why shootings have gone up by 100% since the 1997 firearms amendment, which is clear evidence of the
failure of gun control.

In his third post, my opponent once more makes an incredulous statement:

Our government decided many types of firearm should be banned, and others more tightly controlled - because that's what the majority wanted.

The majority didn’t want the Iraq war; the majority didn’t want an increase in the 10p rate of tax; the majority didn’t want the Lisbon treaty
to be signed etc etc. This government is totally unrepresentative of the people’s opinion and it is nothing but a lie to say otherwise.

My opponent continuously states that “the majority of people don’t want guns”. Is this any justification for banning them? The majority
of people may not want cigarettes to be legal, but they still are because it would infringe the freedom of self determination of those who wish to
exercise their right to smoke.

Finally my opponent makes a clear, credible point about theft of firearms! I applaud him for finally finding a serious leg to stand on. The issue he
raises is a valid concern, and I agree with him that lax control of arms leads to more theft of firearms and thus more crime. However the
solution is not the ban all firearms. Firearms are still easily available on the black market for criminals. A handgun can be bought for as little as
£400. The solution to prevent arms theft is to mandate that guns are stored safely while at home. Forcing people to store guns responsibly in safes
would prevent them being accessed by children and criminals alike. This law is already in place (mandated gun safes), and I support this notion as a
viable solution to this issue. Socratic Question

1. Does my opponent believe it is moral for the majority to force their will upon the minority?

Soulslayer’s closing position

Throughout this debate I have sought to prove that gun ownership in the hands of law abiding civilians is a force for positive in the world. High
civilian arms ownership in 33 states of America are reducing the violent crime, murder and rape rates by 2% every year. High civilian arms ownership
prevented the annexation of Switzerland by Nazi Germany in WWII. Arms ownership should not only be a moral right, it should be a moral obligation. An
armed society is a self-dependent society. While my opponent would prefer to rely upon the police for protection, I seek to defend myself with a
firearm and some training. Banning a firearm as a means of self defence is no more sensible than banning martial arts- after all, they are both
designed to inflict wounds.

While guns are designed to kill, they are a tool. They are inanimate until a person picks them up and pulls the trigger. To blame gun murders on guns
is no more sensible than blaming car accident deaths upon cars.

In an ideal world, perhaps there would be no need for guns. But in the world we live in, a pragmatic approach must triumph. My opponent has conjured a
picture of a country where there is seemingly no crime, and what little crime occurs is stopped by police, or committed by a family relative. This is
simply not the case, as I’m sure anyone affected by crime will tell you.

I invoke the case of Gary Newlove, a father mercilessly and brutally murdered in cold blood by out of control youths. Had he been armed, he would have
been alive. How an arms control advocate could even dare to look into the eyes of his widow I shall never know.

No doubt my opponent shall accuse me of histrionics and hyperbole, but I defend my position to the end. The balance of power must always be in the
hands of the victim. Never must there be a provision of law where the assailant is more catered to than his victim.

I believe in the right of all men and women to defend themselves, their families and their neighbours, and in their rights of self- sufficiency by
armed vigilance.

Ladies and gentlemen, judges of ATS and esteemed opponent, I beg to propose.

Once again my opponent has tried to cloud the issues in his answers to socratic questions by stating this:

It is good to see that you have finally come down on one side of the fence on this issue of whether or not we have the right at the moment.
Surprisingly you appear to agree with me that we do not. The freedom of efficient self defence has been removed. I could grant you the right to defend
yourself with a spoon in a knife fight, but of what benefit would that be to you? Disarmament is being ensured by the continued lack of access that
subjects have to arms.

I have maintained, since my opening statement, that we have never had the right to bear arms.

I don't understand why my opponent cannot understand this.
Could it be something as simple as not reading my posts?

Nor would I ever be in a siuation where I would even be in a knife fight - I find that a quite ridiculous statement.

He also states that I have not said why gun crime has risen - another example of not reading material provided, but just for him I'll make it
clear:
The recording of gun crime was changed in order to take account of crimes committed using replica guns and air rifles.
It's in his very own source.

My opponent has made his wishes quite clear - he doesn't want to live in a democracy.

He wants to do as he pleases, and play the vigilante.

I also did NOT say that no-one cares about gun ownership - they don't see the need, there is a difference.

You see, when the British feel strongly about something, they make their voice heard by exercising their right to peacefull protest - the protests
against the ban on fox hunting would be a good example of this.

How many protests have their been about people wanting guns?

NONE - not one.

He wants to live in a country where the laws passed according to the will of the majority can be ignored by the few.

In other words, he wants anarchy - and in a country where there is no rule of law, I have no doubt that he would need a gun.

Fortunately, that country is not and never will be the UK.

Closing Statement

During the course of this debate, I have provided accurate and up to date material supporting my case against gun ownership.

I have shown that no rights have been removed, no liberties have been trampled on.

We have never had the right to bear arms. but we have the right to use reasonable force to protect ourselves, our property, other people, and
to stop the commission of a crime - and if this right were taken away, I would be the first to speak out.

I have shown that increased gun ownership increases gun-related deaths, and provided sources aplenty to support this.

We don't live in a country where we need to be armed.

We live in a country where the justice system is more than adequate, and where even the police do not see the need for themselves to be permanently
armed.

My opponent would throw all this out, overturn centuries of evolution of a system of justice, and reduce us all to vigilantes who can kill as we see
fit in order to "stop crime"

He has tried to use freedom as an excuse, saying that others are forcing their will on him, when in fact he is guilty of trying to force his will on
the majority.

His kids and sweet shop analogy was apt - that's what his position looks like.

The reasoning behind my opponents argument is clear - it's not about need, it's about WANT.

The reasoning behind my arguments has been clear - we as a country and as a society do not need or want guns.

The people have spoken about this, and made their wishes quite clear.

In any country in the world, there are people who will disagree with aspects of the law and want it changed.

That's why we have the democratic process.

To my opponent I say this - If you want guns, use the powers all subjects have and exercise your democratic rights.

People have already done so, and that's why british subjects are not armed and will not be armed anytime soon, because we don't want to be.

We are sorry for the long delay in judging. At last however, the winner is 44soulslayer.

I really wish that I could offer more of a judgement...but budski was outclassed in this debate. His closing was an attempt to reframe 44's
closing and it just wasn't effective. It serves as a relevant summation of all previous rounds.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.